Dear Justice Souter:

Do you think that Barack Obama has been forthright and proven to the American people that he is a natural born citizen and thus eligible to become President?    I know you are considered  a liberal Associate Justice, since you generally vote similarly to  Justices Ginsberg,  Breyer,  and Stephens.    That is why I am curious and puzzled as to your thoughts and actions  regarding the  Phil Berg’s cases.    You twice  denied Berg’s emergency stay of the electoral college, which even Berg probably expected you to do.    But you put Berg’s case for writ of certiorari on the docket on October 30 and gave Obama et. al. thirty days to respond.    The Federal Election Committee declined to respond, but there was no response whatsoever  from either Obama or the DNC—both let the 30 days expire without responding in any manner.   Was this hubris on the part of Obama and the DNC?    Does Obama, a constitutional lawyer,  think he is above the law and does not answer to the American citizens, the majority who now think there is a significant question about Obama’s natural born citizen status?    Has Obama intimidated the Supreme Court,  which  will not uphold the Constitution because riots are feared if Mr. Obama is legally barred from taking the Presidential Oath?  Is Obama simply calling your bluff  knowing the Supreme Court only accepts 70 to 80 cases each term to review?

Whatever your reason, Justice Souter,  you scheduled a conference with all the Justices on January 9th, the day after Congress is scheduled to ratify the results of the electoral college.   Is this just pro forma or do you believe Mr. Berg truly has a valid case and on January 9th he will now have “standing”  because then Obama will have been certified by the Congress to be the 44th president?

Whatever the outcome of this Friday’s conference,  I kindly ask you to explain to the American people why you do or do not believe Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.     Is there no controlling legal authority over who is empowered to ask our next president to present his vault/longform birth certificate—-something that is asked of  kindergarteners and little league baseball  players?

God bless you always,

politicaldoc

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to “Dear Justice Souter:”

  1. Ted Says:

    Justice Souter can take the challenge as well——

    CHALLENGE (with answer), CAN ANYONE PROVE THIS WRONG?:–

    1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

    2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

    3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution (that both parents must be citizens of USA) co-authored by BHO.

    4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

    5. Since the fact of BHO’s dad being Kenyan/British not in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

    6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

    7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

    ANSWER TO ABOVE CHALLENGE

    IF, when counting the electoral votes, Congress WERE TO find by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American) — fails to qualify as President, Biden would become the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE SUPREME COURT to enjoin Obama’s inauguration relegating Biden to being merely Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President were duly determined.

    (The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.)

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: